About Me

The idea behind this blog is to collect information on the death penalty in India and make it accessible. We are trying our best to put the latest information on the people who are currently on death row, the status of their cases, their mercy petitions and also the information on any death sentence across the country. Please feel free to write us and give us your suggestions and comments and also any information you have come across regarding the death penalty in India. Our email id is abolishdeathpenaltyindia@gmail.com The blog is currently managed by Grace Pelly, Lara Jesani, Nitu Sanadhya, Rebecca Gonsalvez, Reena Mary George and Vijay Hiremath.
Kindly mark copies of the emails to:
vijayhiremath@gmail.com
reena.mary.george@univie.ac.at

Friday, February 6, 2015

Nitish Katara murder case: Mother seeks death for convicts

Jul 04, 2014 at 07:52pm IST

Press Trust of India

New Delhi: The mother of Nitish Katara, who was abducted and killed in 2002, on Friday sought death penalty for the three convicts including UP politician DP Yadav's son Vikas saying they were a "menace to the society and there was no chance of their reformation or rehabilitation". Neelam Katara's counsel, during his arguments on the sentence before a special bench of justices Gita Mittal and JR Midha, said that the convicts have also committed several offences while remaining behind the bars, which showed no remorse and repentance on their part. "From 2002 to 2013, they (convicts) committed over eleven offences, which shows no remorse and repentance. They committed these offences while remaining in custody. This shows that there is no chance of their reformation and rehabilitation.

"I am placing material which prove they are a menace to the society and that itself will establish that there is no possibility of their reformation. So, the only option is death sentence," advocate PK Dey, appearing for Neelam, told the bench. Seeking enhancement of the sentence of life term to death penalty, the counsel argued the eleven offences committed by them are not only criminal in nature but it was a direct interference with the judicial administration. Referring to Vishal, the counsel said while remaining in jail, he and other convicts have threatened the prosecution and even tried to destroy the evidence in the case, which suggests Vishal has no remorse and repentance.

Dey argued the convicts have committed the crime of honour killing which comes under the category of the "rarest of rare" and they can neither be reformed nor rehabilitated as they are habitual offenders. The arguments which remained inconclusive will continue on July 11. During the hearing, Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DLSA) OSD SS Rathi, who was asked by the high court to enquire about the convicts' capacity to pay compensation to the victims or their families, gave the report. Rathi in his report said the "total expenditure incurred on this case by the exchequer is Rs 5.86 crores". Giving details of the expenses, Rathi said that the then Special Public Prosecutor B S Joon in the case has apprised that the cost of investigation in the matter was around Rs two lakh in the year 2002.

"As such, the total approximate cost from the prosecution department side comes to Rs 46.71 lakh. Total expenditure in the Witness Protection head comes to Rs 3.89 crores till date. "Total expenditure incurred by District Judiciary as well as High Court registry is estimated to be Rs 73-74 lakh. All expenses incurred by the Jail Administration in providing boarding and lodging of accused/convicts is Rs 35.60 lakh," the report reads. It said the expenses incurred in transportation, security and manpower for the three convicts from jail to court/hospitals during trial and thereafter is Rs 39.95 lakh. In pursuance of a Supreme Court order, the Delhi High Court had said three convicts will have to pay compensation to the family of Nitish.

The apex court had in a landmark verdict in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs UOI case, said that under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, courts dealing with criminal offences are bound to consider granting compensation to the victims or their families. Vikas, Vishal and Sukhdev Pehalwan are serving life term for abducting and killing Nitish Katara, a business executive and son of an IAS officer, on the intervening night of February 16-17, 2002. They did not approve of the victim's affair with Bharti, daughter of DP Yadav. The High Court had on April 2 upheld the verdict of the lower court in the case by describing the offence as "honour killing" stemming from a "deeply entrenched belief" in caste system.

Nitish Katara was abducted and killed by Vikas, his cousin Vishal Yadav and co-convict Sukhdev Pehalwan as they did not approve of victim's affair with Bharti, daughter of DP Yadav, as they belong to different castes, the court had said. The high court had dismissed the appeals of the convicts and kept pending two separate pleas of the state and Neelam Katara seeking death penalty for them.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Facebook Badge

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

The Indian government is committed to the retention of the death penalty. In December 2007 India was among the minority of countries who voted at the United Nations General Assembly against a moratorium on executions.

India retains the death penalty as punishment for a number of crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or a mentally-retarded person and has more recently in 2013 come to include the offence of rape in certain circumstances. It is mandatory for second convictions for drug trafficking offences.

Death sentences are carried out by hanging. In 1983 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this method, stating that it: “involves no barbarity, torture or degradation.”

After observing an unofficial moratorium of 8 years in India, the Indian Government in November 2012 carried out the execution of Ajmal Kasab, convicted in the Mumbai attacks case, without public knowledge. This was followed by the secret execution of Afzal Guru, convicted in the Parliament attack case of 2001, in February 2013, under similar circumstances, without intimating his immediate family or affording a chance of judicial review. In both cases, the executions were carried out under covert operations conducted by the Government immediately upon rejection of their mercy petitions. Before these executions, the last execution to be carried out in India was that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee in 2004 who was convicted of rape and murder and which sentence was carried out after he had spent 13 years in solitary confinement.

Following this, several mercy petitions of death row convicts have come to be rejected. The fear of execution of such convicts is imminent. Bolstered by the Government's unapologetic conduct and public outcry, especially in recent cases of rape and murder reported in the country, the courts are continuing to hand down death sentences at an alarming rate.

There is very little information on the number of people sentenced to death in India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 1,455 convicts were awarded the death penalty during the period 2001-2011. The actual figure of sentences originally awarded is much higher considering the death sentences of 4,321 convicts came to be commuted to life imprisonment in the said period.

That the imposition of death penalty is ineffective in controlling crime rate or deterring crimes, is widely known and even accepted on the basis of exhaustive research and statistics. Inherently there are serious flaws in capital sentencing. DNA evidence is not used, death sentences can be given by a majority rather than a unanimous bench and many convictions for death sentences are based entirely on circumstantial evidence. This coupled with a faulty criminal law enforcement system and admittedly high corruption levels in the police force investigating the crime, increases the chances of false convictions. In such a scenario, the correctness of conviction resulting in the ultimate sentence of capital punishment relies on a system of trial and error.

Also, the handing over of the death penalty is dependent on various variable factors such as existing biases amongst law enforcers, social biases, media reports and public outcry, social and financial status of the accused, quality of legal representation and last but not the least, the bent of mind of the judges.

During the 1980s the Supreme Court sought to restrict the use of the death penalty by characterizing it as a punishment reserved only for the “rarest of the rare” cases. The doctrine has not had the desired effect. According to a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, Rajindar Sachar: “after the rarest of rare doctrine was introduced in 1980, the Supreme Court confirmed death penalty in 40 per cent of cases in the period 1980-90 while it was 37.7 per cent between 1970 and 1980. For the high courts it rose from 59 per cent in 1970-80 to 65 per cent during 1980-90”. Over the past two decades the death penalty has been extended to include more crimes and been handed down with increasing frequency.

Paradoxically, whilst the “rarest of the rare” doctrine has been used to limit and restrict the use of the mandatory death penalty elsewhere in the world, it has often had the opposite effect in India. It has enabled judges to justify imposing sentences of death in an arbitrary manner, reinforcing the deeply flawed character of capital punishment in India today.

Recently in April 2013, in a petition filed by Devender Pal Singh Bhullar in the Supreme Court, delay in deciding his clemency plea was ruled out as a ground to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar had approached the Supreme Court in 2011 after the President rejected his mercy petition after 8 years. The said judgment may have a far reaching effect on similar cases where mercy petitions have remained pending with the President for inordinate periods of time.